Subject-Specific Discourse Competence: From Teaching to Learning

Author(s):

Helmut Johannes Vollmer

Conference:

ECER 2008

Network:

27. Didactics - Learning and Teaching

Format:

Paper

Session Information

27 SES 04A, Discourse Competence, Discursive Focusing and Lifelong Learning

Paper Session

Time:

2008-09-10

16:00-17:30

Room:

B3 316

Chair:

Brian Hudson

Contribution

The paper will present the results of an empirical study on the integration of language into subject teaching. It will focus on the critical absence of subject-specific discourse competence in learners and discuss didactic implications and perspectives from this finding. Based on a theoretical model of subject-specific competence for the sciences in which subject knowledge, procedural competence and subject-based communication are central components, students of geography in grade 10 (at the end of compulsory education in the German “Gymnasium”) were asked to work on relevant tasks and present their solutions in a written form. In doing so, they had to formulate their answers in a cohesive, coherent and task-appropriate way (including choice of register, use of formal, academic style and textual organisation of meaning), thus demonstrating their relative state of literacy in academic writing or, more specifically, their level of competence in each of the areas mentioned simultaneously. In order to assess these levels of competence, a close analysis of the verbal products took place, also a number of new assessment instruments were developed (e.g. analytic and holistic rating scales). It proved necessary not only to look at content knowledge, procedural ability and communicative competence separately, but to integrate these measures into a scale of the overall degree of task fulfilment, the appropriateness of the required discourse function(s) performed as the best predictor. The study compared regular students of geography (using German as L1) with bilingual ones (using English as L2 as their working language) in their overall geographical competence as defined above. In particular, it was hypothesised that bilingual learners would be less knowledgeable in subject-specific terms than their monolingual counterparts. On the other hand, it was assumed that their communicative skills in expressing their findings would be superior to those of the control group, despite of the fact that they are using a second language. Both assumptions did not prove tenable: The statistical results showed fairly equal knowledge levels of the two groups (sample: 120 versus 184) over the 17 tasks. Also, in the area of subject-related communication there was no statistically significant difference to be found between them. It was remarkable, however, that both bilingual and monolingual learners performed rather low in the overall use and mastery of cognitive academic language proficiency, thus reducing their efficiency in expressing content, in bringing across their learning results in appropriate forms of written communication: both of them showed considerable weaknesses/deficiencies in this area of text/discourse competence. These findings are alarming, given the importance of “academic” communication skills across all school subjects. After illustrating some of the observed difficulties of relating content and language in subject-specific settings on the part of the students (based on short examples from the established data corpus) I will look at how the language base for subject-oriented learning is normally provided through teaching (e.g. by science teachers). There seems to be a dramatic lack of awareness about the constitutive role of language and communication in subject learning and consequently a lack of explicit training in the elements and dimensions of discourse competence, needed for successful subject learning, particularly for academic writing. I will therefore identify areas of subject-based communication which will have to be developed as part of subject learning itself (and not outside of it), namely on the Word level (subject-specific terms, expressions), Contextualisation, Structuring: Linking ideas and sentences (cohesion), Reading Comprehension: Exploiting verbal texts, Comprehending/ Producing information in non-verbal texts, Handling combinations of text + visualised information, Talking „subject“: occasions for extended speech; Writing: different frames, text types/genres, audiences. Final considerations: how to shift from teaching to learning (involving/activating learners).

Method

Elicitation of written responses to "competence" tasks representative for the sucject Geography in German schools (Gymansium) at the end of compulsory education (grade 10). Creation of a large corpus of responses. Analysis of the verbal products, based on an explicit 3-dimensional model of subject competence. Development of a number of new assessment instruments (e.g. analytic and holistic rating scales) which were valid and reliable. It proved to be necessary not only to look at the content knowledge, the procedural skills and the communicative competence of the students separately, but to integrate these measures into a scale of the overall degree of task fulfilment – or the appropriateness of the discourse function(s) performed. These research instruments can all be adapted in other research projects of a similar nature and also be simplified and used for classroom evaluation as well as for self-evaluation on the part of the learners themselves.

Expected Outcomes

Based on the research findings described in the abstract of the paper, I will reflect on the didactic implications of how to support the necessary development of communication competence within subject learning, starting from comprehension, moving on to aspects of meaning production to be represented in verbal and non-verbal forms, and also including competences like editing and mediation. These do not unfold systematically nor satisfactorily all by themselves, especially not in children with a poor language background where topic-based communication and extended discourse happens rarely outside school. Therefore, subject-specific communication structures and expectations/norms have to be built up explicitly in the classroom, they have to be scaffolded step by step and even be trained to a certain extent, though clearly integrated into content teaching. In particular, I will name and exemplify support strategies and techniques for improving the teaching of discourse competence in subjects like biology or geography and the acquisition of important skills within subject learning on the part of the learners. These are partly drawn from the existing literature, partly developed and categorised on our own – from vocabulary networking to the explicit inclusion of visual systems of information to the competence of using and handling them also productively, at least to some extent. It is claimed that subject-specific discourse competence is an absolutely necessary and integral part of overall subject competence and thus has to be specifically attended to and even “taught” within each subject in school. However, it is only when learners themselves become actively involved in experiencing and reflecting on the relationship between content and language and how one mirrors the other in school-based academic discourse that substantial changes and improvements in subject-specific communication may occur – but this social constructivist approach has to be tested yet and shown as superior to other (more cognitively oriented) “teaching” approaches. The explicit teaching of how to correct, improve or restructure an utterance or a whole text will only (or all the more) be efficient and successful when the learners themselves are given a chance of self-discovery and self-repair on their own - before outward guidance through appropriate excercises, worksheets or awareness-raising tasks comes in. Making students feel secure and competent in communicative terms in relation to subject learning is not a luxury or an addition to existing programs, but absolutely central and indispensable for all subject learning and teaching, in all cultures and school forms, world-wide. Otherwise we would deprive students of basic elements of Bildung necessary for the rest of their lives (“Grundbildung”).

References

Chenoweth, N. Ann & Hayes, John R. (2001). Fluency in writing. Generating text in L1 and L2. In: Written Communication 18(1), 80-98. Chenoweth, N. Ann & Hayes, John R. (2003). The inner voice in writing. In: Written Communication 20(1), 99-118. Coetzee-Lachmann, Debbie (2006). Eine Definition fachspezifischer Diskurskompetenz. In: Timm, Johannes-Peter (ed.): Fremdsprachenlernen und Fremdsprachenforschung: Kompetenzen, Standards, Lernformen, Evaluation. Festschrift für Helmut Johannes Vollmer. Tübingen: Narr, 249-265. Coetzee, Debbie (to appear): Assessment of subject-specific task performance of bilingual geography learners: Analysing aspects of subject-specific written discourse. Osnabrück: Universität Osnabrück (Ph.D. Dissertation, 2007). Darian, S. (2003), Understanding the Language of Science. Austin: University of Texas Press. Gee, James P. (2002). Literacies, identities and discourses. In: Schleppegrell, Mary J. / Colombi, Cecilia M. (eds.), Developing advanced literacy in first and second languages: Meaning with power. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 159-175. Halliday, Michael A.K. & Martin, James R. (1993). Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power. London: Falmer Press. Heine, Lena (2006). Wissensbasierte Lösungsprozesse von Fachaufgaben. In: Timm, Johannes-Peter (ed.), Fremdsprachenlernen und Fremdsprachenforschung: Kompetenzen, Stan¬dards, Lernformen, Evaluation. Festschrift für Helmut Johannes Vollmer. Tübingen: Narr, 267-282. Johns, Ann M. (1997). Text, Role, Context. Developing Academic Literacies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lemke, Jay L. (1990). Talking Science: Language, Learning, and Values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Lemke, Jay (1998). Multiplying meaning. Visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text. In: Martin, James R. & Veel, Robert (eds.), Reading Science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science. London: Routledge, 87-113. Lewis, Jenny (2007b). Language for Learning Science: A Social Constructivist Perspective. Strasbourg: Council of Europe (unpublished ms.). Martin, James R. (1993). Genre and literacy – Modelling context in educational linguistics. In: Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 13, 141-172. Ongstad, Sigmund (ed.) (2007). Language in Mathematics? A comparative study of four national curricula. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. (http://www.coe.int/T/DG4/Linguistic/Prague_studies07_EN.asp#TopOfPage) Schleppegrell, Mary J. (2004). The language of schooling. A functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Schmölzer-Eibinger, Sabine & Weidacher, Georg (eds.) (2007). Textkompetenz. Eine Schlüsselkompetenz und ihre Vermittlung. Tübingen: Narr. Troschke, Randi Charlotte (2007): Analyse interaktiver Gesprächsprotokolle: Inhaltliche, sprachliche und soziale Aushandlungsprozesse beim kollaborativen Problemlösen. In: Vollmer, Helmut Johannes (ed.), Synergieeffekte in der Fremdsprachenforschung: Empirische Zugänge, Probleme, Ergebnisse. Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 237-255. Vollmer, Helmut Johannes (2006c). Fachlichkeit und Sprachlichkeit: Zwischenbilanz eines DFG-Projekts. In: Zeitschrift für Fremdsprachenforschung 17(2), 201-244. Vollmer, Helmut Johannes (2006e). Language Across the Curriculum. Expertise for the Council of Europe, Language Policy Division. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. (http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Conference06_Docs_rev_EN.asp#TopOfPage). Vollmer, Helmut Johannes (2007a). Zur Modellierung und empirischen Erfassung von Fachkompetenz am Beispiel der Geographie. In: Vollmer, Helmut Johannes (ed.), Synergieeffekte in der Fremdsprachenforschung: Empirische Zugänge, Probleme, Ergebnisse. Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 279-298. Vollmer, Helmut Johannes (ed.) (2007b). Synergieeffekte in der Fremdsprachenforschung: Empirische Zugänge, Probleme, Ergebnisse. Frankfurt am Main: Lang (Europäischer Verlag der Wissenschaften). Vollmer, Helmut J. (ed.) (2007f). Language and Communication in the Teaching and Learning of Science in Secondary Schools. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. http://www.coe.int/T/DG4/Linguistic/Prague_studies07_EN.asp#TopOfPage Vollmer, Helmut J. (2007g). Reading in Subject-Specific Contexts. Paper, presented at the Intergovernmental Conference in Prague, November 8-10, 2007. [Internet: http://www.coe.int/T/DG4/Linguistic/Prague_studies07_EN.asp#TopOfPage Vollmer, Helmut J. (2007h). Language Across the Curriculum and its links to Language as a Subject. Strasbourg: Council of Europe (unpublished ms.). (http://www.coe.int/T/DG4/Linguistic/Prague_studies07_EN.asp#TopOfPage) Vollmer, Helmut J. (in press). Diskursfunktionen und fachliche Diskurskompetenz bei monolingualen und bilingualen Geographielernern. In: Ditze, Stephan-A. & Halbach, Ana (eds., Bilingualer Sachfachunterricht (CLIL) im Kontext von Multilingualität, Plurikulturalität und Multiliteralität. Frankfurt: Lang, 205-225. Vollmer, H. J. (2008). Constructing Tasks for Content and Language Integrated Learning and Assessment. In: Eckerth, Johannes & Siekmann, Sabine (eds.); Research on task-based language learning and teaching. Theoretical, methodological and pedagogical perspectives. Frankfurt, New York: Lang, 227-286. Weigle, Sarah C. (2002): Assessing Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wellington, J. & Osborne, J. (2001), Language and Literacy in Science Education. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Author Information

Helmut Johannes Vollmer

University of Osnabrück

Languages and Linguistics

Osnabrueck

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.